Even Ari Fleischer vouches for how accurate Woodward is with these things..

What's it like when mythic "reporters" exercise their confirmation bias and make stuff up for dramatic narrative effect? Ask his Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee. Woodward and Bernstein have long been criticized, beginning with their first book "All the President's Men," with their "truthful" depictions from "sources." Since they're MSM heroes, their work is gospel.

I dont even give a shit about the he said she said. Its just funny. friggin talk of the parent group we got going on at my kids school. lol. mom's/dad's....even the neighbors. ohh man.

The best right now is this tom arnold sub-plot on the dworkin report or whatever. i dont even give a shit if its real its funny. the fact that it happens on twitter and all over the pace is ridiculous.

Even Ari Fleischer vouches for how accurate Woodward is with these things..

What's it like when mythic "reporters" exercise their confirmation bias and make stuff up for dramatic narrative effect? Ask his Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee. Woodward and Bernstein have long been criticized, beginning with their first book "All the President's Men," with their "truthful" depictions from "sources." Since they're MSM heroes, their work is gospel.

Hehe, none of Trump‘s people who worked for him have any credibility after they stopped working for him and make damning statements about him. Make of this what you like. There are several conclusions one can draw from this, but none are positive for Trump.

Hehe, none of Trump‘s people who worked for him have any credibility after they stopped working for him and make damning statements about him. Make of this what you like. There are several conclusions one can draw from this, but none are positive for Trump.

Why is that? You cant just declare that by fiat. I think some don't have credibility because they are just habitual liars (Giuliani), but others are credible, and the fact that they tried their best and didn't get anywhere (Rex Tillerson) doesn't mean that what they're saying isn't true..

But anyway, the book is full of statements by people who are still working for Trump (Kelly)....

After hearing that a U.S. intelligence source in Russia was in enough danger that the CIA wanted to remove that person from the country, President Donald Trump reportedly responded by criticizing the use of human sources.

"These are people who have sold their souls and sold out their country," Trump said, according to reporting from a new tell-all book by famed Watergate journalist Bob Woodward that was obtained by NBC News.

During the briefing, Clapper reportedly told Trump, without providing the sources' names, that one source was in enough jeopardy that the CIA wanted to move that person to safety, either through exfiltration to a different country or to the U.S.

But Clapper said the source refused, possibly for fear of harm to the person's family if he or she suddenly left the country, NBC reported from Woodward's book.

To be clear, ours is not the popular “resistance” of the left. We want the administration to succeed and think that many of its policies have already made America safer and more prosperous.

But we believe our first duty is to this country, and the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic.

That is why many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump’s more misguided impulses until he is out of office.

The root of the problem is the president’s amorality. Anyone who works with him knows he is not moored to any discernible first principles that guide his decision making.

Although he was elected as a Republican, the president shows little affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives: free minds, free markets and free people. At best, he has invoked these ideals in scripted settings. At worst, he has attacked them outright.

In addition to his mass-marketing of the notion that the press is the “enemy of the people,” President Trump’s impulses are generally anti-trade and anti-democratic.

Don’t get me wrong. There are bright spots that the near-ceaseless negative coverage of the administration fails to capture: effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust military and more.

But these successes have come despite — not because of — the president’s leadership style, which is impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective.

From the White House to executive branch departments and agencies, senior officials will privately admit their daily disbelief at the commander in chief’s comments and actions. Most are working to insulate their operations from his whims.

Meetings with him veer off topic and off the rails, he engages in repetitive rants, and his impulsiveness results in half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally reckless decisions that have to be walked back.

“There is literally no telling whether he might change his mind from one minute to the next,” a top official complained to me recently, exasperated by an Oval Office meeting at which the president flip-flopped on a major policy decision he’d made only a week earlier.

The erratic behavior would be more concerning if it weren’t for unsung heroes in and around the White House. Some of his aides have been cast as villains by the media. But in private, they have gone to great lengths to keep bad decisions contained to the West Wing, though they are clearly not always successful.

To be clear, ours is not the popular “resistance” of the left. We want the administration to succeed and think that many of its policies have already made America safer and more prosperous.

But we believe our first duty is to this country, and the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic.

That is why many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump’s more misguided impulses until he is out of office.

The root of the problem is the president’s amorality. Anyone who works with him knows he is not moored to any discernible first principles that guide his decision making.

Although he was elected as a Republican, the president shows little affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives: free minds, free markets and free people. At best, he has invoked these ideals in scripted settings. At worst, he has attacked them outright.

In addition to his mass-marketing of the notion that the press is the “enemy of the people,” President Trump’s impulses are generally anti-trade and anti-democratic.

Don’t get me wrong. There are bright spots that the near-ceaseless negative coverage of the administration fails to capture: effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust military and more.

But these successes have come despite — not because of — the president’s leadership style, which is impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective.

From the White House to executive branch departments and agencies, senior officials will privately admit their daily disbelief at the commander in chief’s comments and actions. Most are working to insulate their operations from his whims.

Meetings with him veer off topic and off the rails, he engages in repetitive rants, and his impulsiveness results in half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally reckless decisions that have to be walked back.

“There is literally no telling whether he might change his mind from one minute to the next,” a top official complained to me recently, exasperated by an Oval Office meeting at which the president flip-flopped on a major policy decision he’d made only a week earlier.

The erratic behavior would be more concerning if it weren’t for unsung heroes in and around the White House. Some of his aides have been cast as villains by the media. But in private, they have gone to great lengths to keep bad decisions contained to the West Wing, though they are clearly not always successful.

1. Suppose you could de-link the authors' names from their books - Michael Wolff's Fire and Fury, Omarosa's Unhinged, and Woodward's Fear - scramble them up, then randomly attach the names to the books. Would anyone be able to detect any differences?

2. Next, pretend Trump was not President - insert random generic Republican. Does not the current domestic and international situation call for a judgment of a better-than-average results for a Presidential administration?

Poor Woodward, late to the game, beaten to the scoop by the likes of Wolff and Omarosa. He had a chance to provide insight into how the gossip of #1 above can co-exist with the outcomes of #2. Instead, it's all anti-Trump confirmation bias of "he's stupid, he's crazy."

". . . in the final product, a lot of what Woodward writes comes off as being not quite right—some of it to the point where it can feel quite wrong. There’s no question that he frequently ferrets out information that other reporters don’t. But getting the scoop is only part of the equation. Once you have the facts, you have to present those facts in context and in proportion to other facts in order to accurately reflect reality. It’s here that Woodward fails."

"The simple truth of Wired is that Bob Woodward, deploying all of the talent and resources for which he is famous, produced something that is a failure as journalism. And when you imagine Woodward using the same approach to cover secret meetings about drone strikes and the budget sequester and other issues of vital national importance, well, you have to stop and shudder."